[Army Air Corps]

Does this court have a Wise Latina Woman^tm?

[Pontiac]

Most conspicuously in human rights and immigration cases, more and more judges hand down decisions that establish precedents and defy the expressed views of elected ministers - and, indeed, much of the electorate.

Welcome to the jungle.

Wait till they get to the special rights of the disabled, gays and minorities.

Hope you have your duct tape.

[Wuli]

This problem needs to be put in a British context - Britain has no formal “Constitution”; its laws AND ITS LEGAL STRUCTURE AND, what we would call “constitutionality” has evolved by common law practice and in the “larger than life issues” by the consent of the governed, which was supplied, however efficiently or not, by the House of Lords.

Unlike the United States, in which an active and continuous legislative process has supplied, and modified a formal Constitution, as the basis of what judges are supposed to cling to in their rulings (I said supposed), there is no such formal basis that Britain’s Supreme Court can be held to, even if the Parliament wanted to.

It seems to me that the British system of law is becoming “judicial independence” run amok.

[Cicero]

Basically this happened because the House of Lords held up several of Tony Blair’s favorite bills. In particular, the bill that lowered the age of consent for homsexual relations with minors.

So Blair destroyed the ancient hereditary House of Lords. That removed a huge restraint on doing whatever the party in control of the House of Commons wants, without any limitation, since the Queen has long since lost the power to veto anything or even to speak out against it.

[GeronL]

A written Constitution would be nice. A UK Constitution, not a Eur0-splat one.

[Humble Servant]

Okay, I’ll bite if no one else will. Who or What in the Wide, Wide World of Sports is a “Panjandrum”?